[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] v2 timestamp token
Nick - I suggest calling the element "ErrorBound" because semantically it is the inverse of accuracy - the larger the value, the less the accuracy. Your second question will have to receive wider discussion, I think. My initial suggestion is that the response protocol may have to accommodate either a binary (RFC 3163) token or a <dss:tst> element. But, all we are defining in this section is the <dss:tst> element. All the best. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Pope [mailto:pope@secstan.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:59 AM To: Tim Moses; 'DSS' Subject: RE: [dss] v2 timestamp token Tim, What is the significance of using "errorBound" rather than "accuracy" as in RFC 3161? Is there any difference to how I should handle an RFC 3161 time-stamp from the XML time-stamp? Do we want to define a more general outer structure for time-stamp which includes the choice between an RFC 3161 time-stamp, XML timestamp or some other syntax? Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com] > Sent: 27 August 2003 16:03 > To: 'DSS' > Subject: [dss] v2 timestamp token > > > Colleagues - Here is draft 2 of the timestamp token specification. Main > changes ... > > 1. implemented the naming proposal. > 2. more use of attributes (instead of elements). > 3. changed "accuracy" to "errorBound". > 4. added a verification procedure. > 5. updated the example. > > All the best. Tim. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim Moses > 613.270.3183 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]